State Courts Are Above Constitutions

[heyday]

At least, that's what the Oklahoma Supreme Court seems to be saying:

In his preface to his "Constitution and Enabling Act of Oklahoma", Mr. Justice Williams, formerly a member of the Constitutional Convention, while a justice of this court, said:

15 We call attention to the statement of that eminent authority for the reason that we do not think that this court should be swayed by public sentiment to alter, modify, or repeal any provision of the Constitution by the mere use of its power so to do. In the language of Mr. Justice Osborn, in Independent School Dist. No. 39, Creek County, v. Exchange National Co., 164 Okla. 176, 23 P.2d 210:

However, it's in the dissenting opinion where we really get told the almighty power of the state:

It is contended by petitioners that said act contravenes section 10, art. 1, of the Constitution of the United States, in that it impairs the obligation of contracts, and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in that it deprives plaintiffs of property without due process of law, and takes private property for public use without just compensation, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting any state from depriving any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, or denying to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. It is further contended that it violates section 15, art. 2, of the state Constitution

So what? How can trivial concepts hold against POLICE POWER?

Courts will never declare unconstitutional and void an act of legislation passed with all the forms and solemnities requisite to give it the force of law, unless the nullity and invalidity of the act are placed in its judgment beyond a reasonable doubt. It is only where the act is clearly, palpably and plainly inconsistent with the terms and provisions of the Constitution that the courts will interfere and declare such act invalid and void. All doubt, where there is doubt, will be resolved in favor of its constitutionality.

cites omitted

"For it is settled that neither the 'contract' clause nor the 'due process' clause has the effect of overriding the power of the state to establish all regulations that are reasonably necessary to secure the health, safety, good order, comfort, or general welfare of the community; that this power can neither be abdicated nor bargained away, and is inalienable even by express grant; and that all contract and property rights are held subject to its fair exercise.

And the enforcement of uncompensated obedience to a regulation established under this power for the public health or safety is not an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation or without due process of law.

The distinction between the power of eminent domain and the police power is often fine. In the main it depends on whether the thing is destroyed or is taken over for the public use. If property rights are here invaded, in a degree, compensation therefor has been provided, and possession is to be regained when such compensation remains unpaid. What is taken is the right to use one's property oppressively, and it is the destruction of that right that is contemplated, and not the transfer thereof to the public use. The taking is therefore analogous to the abatement of a nuisance or to the establishment of building restrictions, and it is within the police power.

"Emergency laws in time of peace are uncommon but not unknown.

"Even in the absence of an emergency, the state may pass wholesome and proper laws to regulate the use of private property.

The provision of the Federal Constitution that no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts puts no limit on any lawful exercise of legitimate governmental power.

The rule alike for state and nation is that private contract rights must yield to the public welfare, when the latter is appropriately declared and defined and the two conflict.

"The police power of the state can neither be abrogated, bargained away, nor alienated, even by express grant, and all contracts and property rights are acquired subject to its fair exercise, and neither the contract clause nor the due process clause in the federal Constitution overrides the power of the state to establish necessary and reasonable regulations under its police power. * * *

"While no court has undertaken to specifically define the outlying boundary lines of that inherent power of the government to enact, within constitutional limitations, laws to promote the order, safety, health, morals, and general welfare of society, denominated, for want of a better name, the police power, of the state, it is firmly settled that such power is an attribute of sovereignty and exists without reservations in the Constitution."

The police power is an attribute of sovereignty, inherent in every sovereign state, and not derived from any written Constitution, nor vested by grant of any superior power.

"The term 'police power' comprehends the power to make and enforce all wholesome and reasonable laws and regulations necessary to the maintenance, upbuilding, and advancement of the public weal, and protection of the public interests.

"It is plastic in its nature and will expand to meet the actual requirements of an advancing civilization and adjust itself to the necessities of moral, sanitary, economic, and political conditions.

"No principle in our system of government will limit the right of government to respond to public needs and protect the public welfare.

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not interfere with the proper exercise of the police power of the several states."

The fair import of the above decisions is, we believe, that if the state has properly exercised its police power in relation to the subject of legislation, no provision of the Constitution precludes the validity thereof if the enactment is reasonable in its terms and is reasonably adapted to meet the conditions calling forth this exercise of sovereign power.

STATE ex rel. OSAGE COUNTY SAVINGS & LOAN ASS'N
v. WORTEN, 1933 OK 545, 167 Okla. 187, 29 P.2d
1

Note: The dissent in the companion case STATE ex rel. ROTH v. WATERFIELD, 1933 OK 546, 167 Okla. 209, 29 P.2d 24 have many more such jewels of government wisdom.

"What are the police powers of a state? They are nothing more or less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty to the extent of its dominions. That is to say * * * the power to govern men and things within the limits of its dominion."

"* * * The police power, which, according to the highest court in the land, is inherent in every sovereignty'

Indeed, that great court has said that it is elementary that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not restrain the states in the exercise of their legitimate police power.'

The police power is an attribute of sovereignty, possessed by every sovereign state. * * *It is inherent in the states of the American Union and is not a grant derived from or under any written Constitution."

"* * * It is not the function of this court, under the authority of the 14th Amendment, to supervise the legislation of the states in the exercise of the police power beyond protecting against exertions of such authority in the enactment and enforcement of laws of an arbitrary character, having no reasonable relation to the execution of lawful purposes. *

"While this power is subject to limitations in certain cases, there is wide discretion on the part of the Legislature in determining what is and what is not necessary,--a discretion which courts ordinarily will not interfere with.

And on and on...